By Jess McNally
A 100-square-mile block of ice 600 feet thick has calved off one of the largest ocean-bordering glaciers in Greenland. The Arctic hasn’t lost a chunk of ice that large since 1962.
Animated here.
“In the early morning hours of Aug. 5, an ice island four times the size of Manhattan was born in northern Greenland,” oceanographer Andreas Muenchow of University of Delaware said in a press release Aug. 6. “The freshwater stored in this ice island could keep the Delaware or Hudson rivers flowing for more than two years. It could also keep all U.S. public tap water flowing for 120 days.”
Petermann Glacier is located about 600 miles south of the North Pole. Muenchow and a team of scientists have been studying it since 2003. They had been expecting the glacier to calve, but this piece is much larger than anyone had anticipated.
The glacier lost about one-quarter of its 43-mile-long floating ice-shelf.
The new chunk will enter Nares Straight, an ocean channel between Canada and Greenland, float towards Newfoundland and Labrador, and ultimately end up in the Atlantic Ocean.
The massive calving of the ice-shelf is likely part of a natural cycle for Petermann Glacier rather than a dramatic change that has never been seen before, Muenchow said. “Petermann Glacier has stayed about the same size over the last century,” Muenchow said. “Well, up until yesterday.”
Enlarged here.
Read More.
-----------
Bob Copeland’s North of the Notch Studio
Welcome to Bob Copeland’s world in the White Mountains of New Hampshire! Since retiring from Channel 5 in Boston after 36 years of keeping New Englanders one step ahead of the next snowstorm, Bob has built a retirement home and an art studio right in the middle of snow country!
Gallery I - Recent Paintings contains many of Bob’s oil and pastel impressions of New Hampshire’s North Country including Franconia Notch, Cannon Mountain, Mt. Lafayette, Mt. Washington and the other Presidentials.
Gallery II - Abstractions from Nature features Bob’s macro photography. Here you will find some very abstract images, the subjects of which you may have difficulty identifying.
Gallery III - Atmospheric Abstractions features Bob’s weather photography and his unique ability to capture clouds and storms at just the right moment…
Weather Maps Order a custom weather map hand drawn by Bob for any date you choose since 1900.
These colorful collector’s items are identical to the maps Bob used on Channel 5 prior to the introduction of computer graphics! An ideal gift for the family “weather nut” - choose the date of a memorable event like “The Blizzard of ‘78.” Or what about your wedding anniversary or your sweetheart’s birthday, or the day grandpa knocked over the outhouse with his F-250!
---------------
Our Climate IPHONE APPM
Paul at Aeris Systems has just successfully launched this ipad App: now available for 99 cents ..
If you want another enthusiastic review by our good friend, Lubos Motl, here it is ...
Please share and spread this information as widely as you possibly know ...we need to make sure the public is better educated on this issue and it has been far too too long for UN IPCC and all the Climategate “scientists” to keep dominating the discussion and attention ... See the new “Our Climate” App by Aeris on for iphone with itunes here.
-----------
NOTE: Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
----------------------
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
-------------------------------
GlobalWarming: The Other Side
See John Coleman’s one-hour special on KUSI Global Warming, the Other Side here. See his part II Global Warming Meltdown here. NEW: See his latest interview with Anthony Watts here. See his latest interview with Dr Fred Singer here. See his very revealing story on Roger Revelle here. See his powerful interview with E.M. Smith here. See his other videos here.
-------------------------
The Early Weather Channel Days and a Discussion of Global Warming
By Joe D’Aleo and Andre Bernier
Here more of an interview, I did with TV Meteorologist Andre Bernier of FOX 8 in Cleveland on Weatherjazz, who was a student of mine at Lyndon State College, and who by luck of the draw, was one of two on-camera meteorologists who did the first half hour of the Weather Channel (along with Bruce Edwards) on May 2, 1982. We talked about both the early days of the Weather Channel and global warming. The audio is here. See also episode 21 on November 10, 2009, when we talked about the upcoming winter.
-----------------------
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additonal scientific youtubes here.
------------------------
750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm
“The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 750 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
Author added a nice quote from an RC commenter,
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line.” - John H., comment at RealClimate.org
Minor Victory - on a side note with the help of Bill Hughes the publisher of the journal Energy & Environment, we successfully got Scopus to remove the trade journal listing and properly list E&E as a peer-reviewed journal. That now gives two credible sources indexing E&E as peer-reviewed - EBSCO and Scopus. This helps tremendously, especially when referencing MM’s papers in E&E and all the rest (roughly 15% of the list).
See still more annotated here.
--------------
Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
------------------------
Available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap) SOME NEW ITEMS:
See full size display here.
And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here
See sister sites:
Coleman’s Corner here.
Science and Public Policy Institute here.
Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.
RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
Weather/Climate and Health here.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels.
By Roger Pielke Jr.
The World Meteorological Organization has issued he following statement:
Several regions of the world are currently coping with severe weather-related events: flash floods and widespread flooding in large parts of Asia and parts of Central Europe while other regions are also affected: by heatwave and drought in Russian Federation, mudslides in China and severe droughts in sub-Saharan Africa. While a longer time range is required to establish whether an individual event is attributable to climate change, the sequence of current events matches IPCC projections of more frequent and more intense extreme weather events due to global warming.
Even though the IPCC report can be parsed in many ways, I await the textual exegesis that supports the claim that the “sequence of current events matches IPCC predictions.” This will be difficult given that the IPCC didn’t even make projections for 2010. I welcome in the comments efforts to justify the claim by the WMO.
I am coming to the conclusion that there is something about the climate issue that makes people—especially but not limited to academics and scientists—completely and utterly lose their senses. The WMO statement is (yet) another example of scientifically unsupportable nonsense in the climate debate. Such nonsense is of course not going away anytime soon .
But because various unsupportable and just wrong claims are being advanced by leading scientists and scientific organizations, it would be easy to get the impression that on the issues of extreme events and climate change, IPCC science has a status similar to interpretations of Nostradamus and the Mayan calenders.
See more here.
Welcome to Bob Copeland’s world in the White Mountains of New Hampshire! Since retiring from Channel 5 in Boston after 36 years of keeping New Englanders one step ahead of the next snowstorm, Bob has built a retirement home and an art studio right in the middle of snow country!
Gallery I - Recent Paintings contains many of Bob’s oil and pastel impressions of New Hampshire’s North Country including Franconia Notch, Cannon Mountain, Mt. Lafayette, Mt. Washington and the other Presidentials.
Gallery II - Abstractions from Nature features Bob’s macro photography. Here you will find some very abstract images, the subjects of which you may have difficulty identifying.
Gallery III - Atmospheric Abstractions features Bob’s weather photography and his unique ability to capture clouds and storms at just the right moment…
Weather Maps Order a custom weather map hand drawn by Bob for any date you choose since 1900.
These colorful collector’s items are identical to the maps Bob used on Channel 5 prior to the introduction of computer graphics! An ideal gift for the family “weather nut” - choose the date of a memorable event like “The Blizzard of ‘78.” Or what about your wedding anniversary or your sweetheart’s birthday, or the day grandpa knocked over the outhouse with his F-250!
---------------
Our Climate IPHONE APPM
Paul at Aeris Systems has just successfully launched this ipad App: now available for 99 cents ..
If you want another enthusiastic review by our good friend, Lubos Motl, here it is ...
Please share and spread this information as widely as you possibly know ...we need to make sure the public is better educated on this issue and it has been far too too long for UN IPCC and all the Climategate “scientists” to keep dominating the discussion and attention ... See the new “Our Climate” App by Aeris on for iphone with itunes here.
-----------
NOTE: Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
----------------------
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
-------------------------------
GlobalWarming: The Other Side
See John Coleman’s one-hour special on KUSI Global Warming, the Other Side here. See his part II Global Warming Meltdown here. NEW: See his latest interview with Anthony Watts here. See his latest interview with Dr Fred Singer here. See his very revealing story on Roger Revelle here. See his powerful interview with E.M. Smith here. See his other videos here.
-------------------------
The Early Weather Channel Days and a Discussion of Global Warming
By Joe D’Aleo and Andre Bernier
Here more of an interview, I did with TV Meteorologist Andre Bernier of FOX 8 in Cleveland on Weatherjazz, who was a student of mine at Lyndon State College, and who by luck of the draw, was one of two on-camera meteorologists who did the first half hour of the Weather Channel (along with Bruce Edwards) on May 2, 1982. We talked about both the early days of the Weather Channel and global warming. The audio is here. See also episode 21 on November 10, 2009, when we talked about the upcoming winter.
-----------------------
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additonal scientific youtubes here.
------------------------
750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm
“The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 750 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
Author added a nice quote from an RC commenter,
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line.” - John H., comment at RealClimate.org
Minor Victory - on a side note with the help of Bill Hughes the publisher of the journal Energy & Environment, we successfully got Scopus to remove the trade journal listing and properly list E&E as a peer-reviewed journal. That now gives two credible sources indexing E&E as peer-reviewed - EBSCO and Scopus. This helps tremendously, especially when referencing MM’s papers in E&E and all the rest (roughly 15% of the list).
See still more annotated here.
--------------
Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
------------------------
Available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap) SOME NEW ITEMS:
See full size display here.
And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here
See sister sites:
Coleman’s Corner here.
Science and Public Policy Institute here.
Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.
RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
Weather/Climate and Health here.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels.
By Shane D’Aprile - 08/07/10 04:04 PM ET
Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) suggested a novel use Saturday for a 100-square-mile ice sheet that has broken off Greenland. “An iceberg four times the size of Manhattan has broken off Greenland, creating plenty of room for global warming deniers to start their own country,” Markey said in a statement. “So far, 2010 has been the hottest year on record, and scientists agree arctic ice is a canary in a coal mine that provides clear warnings on climate.”
Some scientists have attributed the breaking off of the ice sheet to abnormally warm temperatures this year. Markey, who chairs the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, co-authored the House version of the climate change bill that’s currently stalled in the Senate.
He said it was “unclear how many giant blocks of ice it will take to break the block of Republican climate deniers in the US Senate who continue hold this critical clean energy and climate legislation hostage.”
See post here.
Markey is Massachusetts other big mistake...Kerry and Markey are the Bay State’s version of Dumb and Dumber. Yet as is so typically the case his ignorance is only topped by his arrogance. He and his other rip off artists in Washington belong on another island - San Quentin. Since he seems so focused on iceblocks we will refer to him henceforth as blockhead Markey.
Lubos Motl continues on with
Ed Markey wants an icy concentration camp for 4 billion people
The Nazis have at least dedicated villages and built new buildings to collect the people they didn’t like. For environmentalists, this is too much of a luxury. A left-wing political representative of Massachusetts, Mr Ed Markey, proposed a cheaper solution.
Warming skeptics should move to ice island (The Boston Globe)
Where should the new country for 4 billion people be located? Well, he has an answer:
“An iceberg four times the size of Manhattan has broken off Greenland, creating plenty of room for global warming deniers to start their own country,” Markey said in a statement. Is 100 square miles really a lot of room for 4 billion people? He justifies his plans by his own, idiosyncratic temperature record:
“So far, 2010 has been the hottest year on record, and scientists agree arctic ice is a canary in a coal mine that provides clear warnings on climate.” Well, pretty much every month of 2010 - and the average - was cooler than the same month of 1998 which is 12 years ago. When a chair of a self-appointed “global warming” senate committee is proposing gigantic concentration camps, he may want to be more careful while looking at the climate data.
The Arctic ice is not just a canary in a coal mine. As Milankovitch managed to realize as the first person, the fluctuating insolation and weather in the Arctic actually drives much of the climate change on the Earth: that’s why the ice ages and interglacials alternate. However, the Arctic itself is primarily affected by the Sun, the orbital fluctuations, and ocean circulation.
Markey has also asked a question about the icebergs that I will happily answer:
He said it was “unclear how many giant blocks of ice it will take to break the block of Republican climate deniers in the US Senate who continue hold this critical clean energy and climate legislation hostage.”
Well, it may be “unclear” to hostile yet under-educated left-wing politicians but it is an easy-to-calculate number, at least approximately. Just in Greenland, ten thousand icebergs break away from the Greenland glaciers every year. Because the Sun will exist in its current form for 5 billion years when it will become a red giant, you can see that just Greenland will experience additional 50 trillion icebergs breaking away before the Earth will agree to regulate its climate and cool down.
Well, yes, I have neglected the future continental drift but the goal was to find a sensible idea about the number. Does it answer your question, Mr Markey? The ice is breaking, it has always been breaking, and it will be breaking. An answer of order “one” that you apparently expected is surely wrong.
Needless to say, it is much more natural, user-friendly, and human to relocate the global warming alarmists to the icebergs because they’re afraid of the warm weather around 15 degrees Celsius (or even scary, frying 16 degrees Celsius). They should sell their lives for tons of carbon permits, in order to guarantee a luxurious life for the few pandas who will remain here instead of them, and go away. Their methods and ideals are surely incompatible with the principles and ambitions of the United States of America.
Well, I am just writing this story for the future readers to know that if Mr Markey will have to be executed for crimes against the humanity sometime around 2020, there has been a pre-history that has led him where it has led him. See Motl’s Reference Frame post here.
Popular Technology Net
A recent paper published in the PNAS, ”Expert credibility in climate change” is being used as propaganda to claim that 97% of all climate scientists agree with the IPCC and the need for government action on climate change. An analysis of this paper does not support these conclusions.
PNAS reviewers and author’s William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider are apparently Google Scholar illiterate since searching for just the word “climate” with an author’s name will bring results from non-peer-reviewed sources such as books, magazines, newspapers, patents, citations, duplicate listings and all sorts of other erroneous results. Such as 16,000 from the Guardian, 52,000 from Newsweek and 115,000 from the New York Times. There is no “peer-reviewed journal only” search option in Google Scholar.
New Scientist
IS CLIMATEGATE finally over? It ought to be, with the publication of the third UK report into the emails leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU). Incredibly, none looked at the quality of the science itself.
The MPs’ inquiry - rushed out before the UK general election on 6 May - ducked the science because the university said it was setting up an “independent scientific assessment panel” chaired by geologist Ron Oxburgh.
After publishing his five-page epistle, Oxburgh declared “the science was not the subject of our study”. Finally, last week came former civil servant Muir Russell’s 150-page report. Like the others, he lambasted the CRU for its secrecy but upheld its integrity - despite declaring his study “was not about… the content or quality of [CRU’s] scientific work” (see “Scientists respond to Muir Russell report").
Though the case for action to cut greenhouse gases remains strong, this omission matters. How can we know whether CRU researchers were properly exercising their judgment? Without dipping his toes into the science, how could Russell tell whether they were misusing their power as peer reviewers to reject papers critical of their own research, or keep sceptical research out of reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?
Russell’s report was much tougher on data secrecy, finding a “consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness”. Key data on matters of public importance - like CRU’s assembly of 160 years of global thermometer data - cannot be regarded as private property. Even so, he ought to have joined Oxburgh in calling for greater documentation of the “judgmental decisions” that turned raw data into the graphs of global average temperatures. Data manipulation is the stuff of science, but that manipulation has to be as open and transparent as the data itself.
Global thermometer data going back 160 years cannot be regarded as private property
Russell’s team left other stones unturned. They decided against detailed analysis of all the emails in the public domain. They examined just three instances of possible abuse of peer review, and just two cases when CRU researchers may have abused their roles as authors of IPCC reports. There were others. They have not studied hundreds of thousands more unpublished emails from the CRU. Surely openness would require their release.
All this, plus the failure to investigate whether emails were deleted to prevent their release under freedom of information laws, makes it harder to accept Russell’s conclusion that the “rigour and honesty” of the scientists concerned “are not in doubt”.
Some will argue it is time to leave climategate behind. But it is difficult to justify the conclusion of Edward Acton, University of East Anglia vice-chancellor, that the CRU has been “completely exonerated”. Openness in sharing data, even with your critics, is a legal requirement.
But what happened to intellectual candour - especially in conceding the shortcomings of these inquiries and discussing the way that science is done. Without candour, public trust in climate science cannot be restored, nor should it be.
--------------------
“It is often said in politics that the cover-up is worse than the crime”
Jay Lehr, Ph.D., science director at the Chicago-based Heartland Institute
Media Advisory: Heartland Institute Expert on the ‘Cover Up’ of Climategate
The University of East Anglia Wednesday released the results of its internal investigation into the scandal known as “Climategate” - the leaking of emails from the university’s climate change research center showing how scientists engaged in a conspiracy to fudge data so as to blame human activity for global warming, and to blackball any scientists who did not toe the alarmist line.
The investigation cleared university scientists of any wrong-doing, declaring: “Their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.” The report also noted, “we did not find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
“It is often said in politics that the cover-up is worse than the crime. The so-called ‘Independent Climate Change Email Review’ headed by Sir Muir Russell is another attempt to ignore, deny, and excuse the misconduct of the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit and the cabal of crooked scientists who fed the global warming delusion. It is an even sadder commentary on science today than the actual collusion and fraud that was clearly perpetrated.
“The Russell report shows that in some places it is deemed business as usual for researchers to force their work in the direction they and their financial supporters desire. As recently as 50 years ago, such scientists would be blackballed for such conduct.
“The real result of all of this will not be a clean reputation for the East Anglia group and its cohorts elsewhere but rather a dramatically reduced faith on the part of the public in the important work of scientists throughout the world.”
--------------------
Climategate: The Muir-Russell report: Some initial comments
iDr. Fred Singer, SEPP
In contrast to the Oxburgh report, the MR report is quite substantive (160 pp, incl 8 appendices) and very professionally produced. MR members held some dozen meetings (presumably in Edinburgh), conducted many interviews at UAE, and accepted some 100 submissions (all unpublished). [A very few of these came from recognizable skeptics; none from Douglass, Christy or Singer, although our work is referred to on pp 148-149—as a threat to Jones?]
I have several major criticisms, mostly connected to the fact that the Team had no in-house competence in the relevant science (atmospheric physics and meteorology). Prof Boulton is a geologist, Prof Clarke is a particle physicist, and Norton seems to be a general expert on engineering and business. Sir Muir Russell himself once got a degree in natural philosophy (physics). As far as one can tell, they consulted only supporters of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), i.e., supporters of the IPCC.
* As a result, they could not really judge whether Phil Jones (head of the Climate Research Unit at UEA) manipulated the post-1980 temperature data, both by selection of weather stations and by applying certain corrections to individual records. Had they spoken to Joe D’Aleo or to Anthony Watts, they might have gotten a different slant on the CRU’s handling of station data.
* The MR Team concentrates much of the report on the ‘hockey stick,’ and on whether the 20th century was the warmest in the past 1000 years (as claimed by Michael Mann and also by IPCC-3, relying mainly on tree-ring data,). But that issue is really irrelevant and a distraction from the main question (which is never addressed): Is the warming of the past 50 years mainly anthropogenic (as claimed by IPCC-4) or natural (as asserted by NIPCC and some other IPCC critics)?
* In pursuing the question, the Team must realize that the CRU deals only with land data (covering, imperfectly, only 30% of the Earth’s surface) and that sea-surface temperatures (SST) are really more important. Weather stations and trees tend to be land-based.
* Also, the Team never bothers to inquire about the atmospheric temperature record from satellites, the only high-quality and truly global record in existence. They seem unaware of the substantial disparity between satellites and the CRU record.
In defense of the MR Team, they consider science to be outside of their charter and within the remit of the Oxburgh team. [See Item 5 on p.10] (Having seen the Oxburgh report, however, some might consider this a joke.) Yet the Team feels empowered to speak with authority about conclusions that depend on climate science. In fact, none of the investigations so far have had a serious look at the crucial science issues.
* As a result, the Team doesn’t seem to realize [p.23 and 32] that “hide the decline” and “Mike’s [Michael Mann] “trick” refers to a cover-up. Mann’s 1000-yr temperature record (from proxies) suddenly stops at 1980 - not because there are no suitable post-1980 proxy data (as Mann has claimed in e-mails that responded to inquiries), but because they do not show the dramatic temperature rise of Jones’ thermometer data.
* This problem recurs again with Fig 6.2 (which is Fig 3.1 from IPCC-4) and involves misuse of the ‘smoothing’ procedure, i.e., replacing annual temperatures with a ‘running average’ of (usually) five years and sometimes longer. [I discussed the matter in some detail in my Science Editorial 8-09 (2-28-2009)]. As can be seen by inspection, there is little rise in temperature between 1980 and 1996, until the ‘super-El-Nino’ of 1998 (which has nothing to do with GH gases or AGW). The satellite record shows more clearly the absence of any significant temperature rise between 1979 and 1997.
It is ironic then that the real post-1980 global temperatures may be closer to the proxy record than to the thermometer record. We will find out when we learn what data Michael Mann discarded.
In this connection, the legal demand for all of Mann’s data by Virginia’s Attorney-General Ken Cuccinelli assumes additional significance. Based on his own statements, one suspects that Jones has deleted some crucial e-mails. It is likely that these may be discovered among Mann’s e-mails, now held by the University of Virginia. It might put a new light on the whole Climategate affair.
-----------
NOTE: Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
----------------------
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
-------------------------------
GlobalWarming: The Other Side
See John Coleman’s one-hour special on KUSI Global Warming, the Other Side here. See his part II Global Warming Meltdown here. NEW: See his latest interview with Anthony Watts here. See his latest interview with Dr Fred Singer here. See his very revealing story on Roger Revelle here. See his powerful interview with E.M. Smith here. See his other videos here.
-------------------------
The Early Weather Channel Days and a Discussion of Global Warming
By Joe D’Aleo and Andre Bernier
Here more of an interview, I did with TV Meteorologist Andre Bernier of FOX 8 in Cleveland on Weatherjazz, who was a student of mine at Lyndon State College, and who by luck of the draw, was one of two on-camera meteorologists who did the first half hour of the Weather Channel (along with Bruce Edwards) on May 2, 1982. We talked about both the early days of the Weather Channel and global warming. The audio is here. See also episode 21 on November 10, 2009, when we talked about the upcoming winter.
-----------------------
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additonal scientific youtubes here.
------------------------
750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm
“The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 750 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
Author added a nice quote from an RC commenter,
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line.” - John H., comment at RealClimate.org
Minor Victory - on a side note with the help of Bill Hughes the publisher of the journal Energy & Environment, we successfully got Scopus to remove the trade journal listing and properly list E&E as a peer-reviewed journal. That now gives two credible sources indexing E&E as peer-reviewed - EBSCO and Scopus. This helps tremendously, especially when referencing MM’s papers in E&E and all the rest (roughly 15% of the list).
See still more annotated here.
--------------
Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
------------------------
Available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap) SOME NEW ITEMS:
See full size display here.
And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here
See sister sites:
Coleman’s Corner here.
Science and Public Policy Institute here.
Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.
RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
Weather/Climate and Health here.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels.
By Zhang et al
Recent studies have linked climatic and social instabilities in ancient China; the underlying causal mechanisms have, however, often not been quantitatively assessed. Here, using historical records and palaeoclimatic reconstructions during AD 10 - 1900, we demonstrate that war frequency, price of rice, locust plague, drought frequency, flood frequency and temperature in China show two predominant periodic bands around 160 and 320 years where they interact significantly with each other. Temperature cooling shows direct positive association with the frequency of external aggression war to the Chinese dynasties mostly from the northern pastoral nomadic societies, and indirect positive association with the frequency of internal war within the Chinese dynasties through drought and locust plagues. The collapses of the agricultural dynasties of the Han, Tang, Song and Ming are more closely associated with low temperature. Our study suggests that food production during the last two millennia has been more unstable during cooler periods, resulting in more social conflicts owing to rebellions within the dynasties or/and southward aggressions from northern pastoral nomadic societies in ancient China.
--------------------
“It is often said in politics that the cover-up is worse than the crime”
Jay Lehr, Ph.D., science director at the Chicago-based Heartland Institute
Media Advisory: Heartland Institute Expert on the ‘Cover Up’ of Climategate
The University of East Anglia Wednesday released the results of its internal investigation into the scandal known as “Climategate” - the leaking of emails from the university’s climate change research center showing how scientists engaged in a conspiracy to fudge data so as to blame human activity for global warming, and to blackball any scientists who did not toe the alarmist line.
The investigation cleared university scientists of any wrong-doing, declaring: “Their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.” The report also noted, “we did not find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
“It is often said in politics that the cover-up is worse than the crime. The so-called ‘Independent Climate Change Email Review’ headed by Sir Muir Russell is another attempt to ignore, deny, and excuse the misconduct of the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit and the cabal of crooked scientists who fed the global warming delusion. It is an even sadder commentary on science today than the actual collusion and fraud that was clearly perpetrated.
“The Russell report shows that in some places it is deemed business as usual for researchers to force their work in the direction they and their financial supporters desire. As recently as 50 years ago, such scientists would be blackballed for such conduct.
“The real result of all of this will not be a clean reputation for the East Anglia group and its cohorts elsewhere but rather a dramatically reduced faith on the part of the public in the important work of scientists throughout the world.”
--------------------
Climategate: The Muir-Russell report: Some initial comments
iDr. Fred Singer, SEPP
In contrast to the Oxburgh report, the MR report is quite substantive (160 pp, incl 8 appendices) and very professionally produced. MR members held some dozen meetings (presumably in Edinburgh), conducted many interviews at UAE, and accepted some 100 submissions (all unpublished). [A very few of these came from recognizable skeptics; none from Douglass, Christy or Singer, although our work is referred to on pp 148-149—as a threat to Jones?]
I have several major criticisms, mostly connected to the fact that the Team had no in-house competence in the relevant science (atmospheric physics and meteorology). Prof Boulton is a geologist, Prof Clarke is a particle physicist, and Norton seems to be a general expert on engineering and business. Sir Muir Russell himself once got a degree in natural philosophy (physics). As far as one can tell, they consulted only supporters of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), i.e., supporters of the IPCC.
* As a result, they could not really judge whether Phil Jones (head of the Climate Research Unit at UEA) manipulated the post-1980 temperature data, both by selection of weather stations and by applying certain corrections to individual records. Had they spoken to Joe D’Aleo or to Anthony Watts, they might have gotten a different slant on the CRU’s handling of station data.
* The MR Team concentrates much of the report on the ‘hockey stick,’ and on whether the 20th century was the warmest in the past 1000 years (as claimed by Michael Mann and also by IPCC-3, relying mainly on tree-ring data,). But that issue is really irrelevant and a distraction from the main question (which is never addressed): Is the warming of the past 50 years mainly anthropogenic (as claimed by IPCC-4) or natural (as asserted by NIPCC and some other IPCC critics)?
* In pursuing the question, the Team must realize that the CRU deals only with land data (covering, imperfectly, only 30% of the Earth’s surface) and that sea-surface temperatures (SST) are really more important. Weather stations and trees tend to be land-based.
* Also, the Team never bothers to inquire about the atmospheric temperature record from satellites, the only high-quality and truly global record in existence. They seem unaware of the substantial disparity between satellites and the CRU record.
In defense of the MR Team, they consider science to be outside of their charter and within the remit of the Oxburgh team. [See Item 5 on p.10] (Having seen the Oxburgh report, however, some might consider this a joke.) Yet the Team feels empowered to speak with authority about conclusions that depend on climate science. In fact, none of the investigations so far have had a serious look at the crucial science issues.
* As a result, the Team doesn’t seem to realize [p.23 and 32] that “hide the decline” and “Mike’s [Michael Mann] “trick” refers to a cover-up. Mann’s 1000-yr temperature record (from proxies) suddenly stops at 1980 - not because there are no suitable post-1980 proxy data (as Mann has claimed in e-mails that responded to inquiries), but because they do not show the dramatic temperature rise of Jones’ thermometer data.
* This problem recurs again with Fig 6.2 (which is Fig 3.1 from IPCC-4) and involves misuse of the ‘smoothing’ procedure, i.e., replacing annual temperatures with a ‘running average’ of (usually) five years and sometimes longer. [I discussed the matter in some detail in my Science Editorial 8-09 (2-28-2009)]. As can be seen by inspection, there is little rise in temperature between 1980 and 1996, until the ‘super-El-Nino’ of 1998 (which has nothing to do with GH gases or AGW). The satellite record shows more clearly the absence of any significant temperature rise between 1979 and 1997.
It is ironic then that the real post-1980 global temperatures may be closer to the proxy record than to the thermometer record. We will find out when we learn what data Michael Mann discarded.
In this connection, the legal demand for all of Mann’s data by Virginia’s Attorney-General Ken Cuccinelli assumes additional significance. Based on his own statements, one suspects that Jones has deleted some crucial e-mails. It is likely that these may be discovered among Mann’s e-mails, now held by the University of Virginia. It might put a new light on the whole Climategate affair.
-----------
NOTE: Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
----------------------
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
-------------------------------
GlobalWarming: The Other Side
See John Coleman’s one-hour special on KUSI Global Warming, the Other Side here. See his part II Global Warming Meltdown here. NEW: See his latest interview with Anthony Watts here. See his latest interview with Dr Fred Singer here. See his very revealing story on Roger Revelle here. See his powerful interview with E.M. Smith here. See his other videos here.
-------------------------
The Early Weather Channel Days and a Discussion of Global Warming
By Joe D’Aleo and Andre Bernier
Here more of an interview, I did with TV Meteorologist Andre Bernier of FOX 8 in Cleveland on Weatherjazz, who was a student of mine at Lyndon State College, and who by luck of the draw, was one of two on-camera meteorologists who did the first half hour of the Weather Channel (along with Bruce Edwards) on May 2, 1982. We talked about both the early days of the Weather Channel and global warming. The audio is here. See also episode 21 on November 10, 2009, when we talked about the upcoming winter.
-----------------------
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additonal scientific youtubes here.
------------------------
750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm
“The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 750 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
Author added a nice quote from an RC commenter,
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line.” - John H., comment at RealClimate.org
Minor Victory - on a side note with the help of Bill Hughes the publisher of the journal Energy & Environment, we successfully got Scopus to remove the trade journal listing and properly list E&E as a peer-reviewed journal. That now gives two credible sources indexing E&E as peer-reviewed - EBSCO and Scopus. This helps tremendously, especially when referencing MM’s papers in E&E and all the rest (roughly 15% of the list).
See still more annotated here.
--------------
Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
------------------------
Available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap) SOME NEW ITEMS:
See full size display here.
And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here
See sister sites:
Coleman’s Corner here.
Science and Public Policy Institute here.
Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.
RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
Weather/Climate and Health here.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool.
Jay Lehr, Ph.D., science director at the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, Dr Fred Singer SEPP
Media Advisory: Heartland Institute Expert on the ‘Cover Up’ of Climategate
The University of East Anglia Wednesday released the results of its internal investigation into the scandal known as “Climategate” - the leaking of emails from the university’s climate change research center showing how scientists engaged in a conspiracy to fudge data so as to blame human activity for global warming, and to blackball any scientists who did not toe the alarmist line.
The investigation cleared university scientists of any wrong-doing, declaring: “Their rigor and honesty as scientists are not in doubt.” The report also noted, “we did not find any evidence of behavior that might undermine the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
“It is often said in politics that the cover-up is worse than the crime. The so-called ‘Independent Climate Change Email Review’ headed by Sir Muir Russell is another attempt to ignore, deny, and excuse the misconduct of the East Anglia University Climate Research Unit and the cabal of crooked scientists who fed the global warming delusion. It is an even sadder commentary on science today than the actual collusion and fraud that was clearly perpetrated.
“The Russell report shows that in some places it is deemed business as usual for researchers to force their work in the direction they and their financial supporters desire. As recently as 50 years ago, such scientists would be blackballed for such conduct.
“The real result of all of this will not be a clean reputation for the East Anglia group and its cohorts elsewhere but rather a dramatically reduced faith on the part of the public in the important work of scientists throughout the world.”
--------------------
Climategate: The Muir-Russell report: Some initial comments
iDr. Fred Singer, SEPP
In contrast to the Oxburgh report, the MR report is quite substantive (160 pp, incl 8 appendices) and very professionally produced. MR members held some dozen meetings (presumably in Edinburgh), conducted many interviews at UAE, and accepted some 100 submissions (all unpublished). [A very few of these came from recognizable skeptics; none from Douglass, Christy or Singer, although our work is referred to on pp 148-149—as a threat to Jones?]
I have several major criticisms, mostly connected to the fact that the Team had no in-house competence in the relevant science (atmospheric physics and meteorology). Prof Boulton is a geologist, Prof Clarke is a particle physicist, and Norton seems to be a general expert on engineering and business. Sir Muir Russell himself once got a degree in natural philosophy (physics). As far as one can tell, they consulted only supporters of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), i.e., supporters of the IPCC.
* As a result, they could not really judge whether Phil Jones (head of the Climate Research Unit at UEA) manipulated the post-1980 temperature data, both by selection of weather stations and by applying certain corrections to individual records. Had they spoken to Joe D’Aleo or to Anthony Watts, they might have gotten a different slant on the CRU’s handling of station data.
* The MR Team concentrates much of the report on the ‘hockey stick,’ and on whether the 20th century was the warmest in the past 1000 years (as claimed by Michael Mann and also by IPCC-3, relying mainly on tree-ring data,). But that issue is really irrelevant and a distraction from the main question (which is never addressed): Is the warming of the past 50 years mainly anthropogenic (as claimed by IPCC-4) or natural (as asserted by NIPCC and some other IPCC critics)?
* In pursuing the question, the Team must realize that the CRU deals only with land data (covering, imperfectly, only 30% of the Earth’s surface) and that sea-surface temperatures (SST) are really more important. Weather stations and trees tend to be land-based.
* Also, the Team never bothers to inquire about the atmospheric temperature record from satellites, the only high-quality and truly global record in existence. They seem unaware of the substantial disparity between satellites and the CRU record.
In defense of the MR Team, they consider science to be outside of their charter and within the remit of the Oxburgh team. [See Item 5 on p.10] (Having seen the Oxburgh report, however, some might consider this a joke.) Yet the Team feels empowered to speak with authority about conclusions that depend on climate science. In fact, none of the investigations so far have had a serious look at the crucial science issues.
* As a result, the Team doesn’t seem to realize [p.23 and 32] that “hide the decline” and “Mike’s [Michael Mann] “trick” refers to a cover-up. Mann’s 1000-yr temperature record (from proxies) suddenly stops at 1980 - not because there are no suitable post-1980 proxy data (as Mann has claimed in e-mails that responded to inquiries), but because they do not show the dramatic temperature rise of Jones’ thermometer data.
* This problem recurs again with Fig 6.2 (which is Fig 3.1 from IPCC-4) and involves misuse of the ‘smoothing’ procedure, i.e., replacing annual temperatures with a ‘running average’ of (usually) five years and sometimes longer. [I discussed the matter in some detail in my Science Editorial 8-09 (2-28-2009)]. As can be seen by inspection, there is little rise in temperature between 1980 and 1996, until the ‘super-El-Nino’ of 1998 (which has nothing to do with GH gases or AGW). The satellite record shows more clearly the absence of any significant temperature rise between 1979 and 1997.
It is ironic then that the real post-1980 global temperatures may be closer to the proxy record than to the thermometer record. We will find out when we learn what data Michael Mann discarded.
In this connection, the legal demand for all of Mann’s data by Virginia’s Attorney-General Ken Cuccinelli assumes additional significance. Based on his own statements, one suspects that Jones has deleted some crucial e-mails. It is likely that these may be discovered among Mann’s e-mails, now held by the University of Virginia. It might put a new light on the whole Climategate affair.
-----------
Two camps of Climatologists
By Kim Greenhouse
When one begins to examine climate science and politics, one awakens to the realization that there are essentially two types of climatologists: modelers (the simulators) and empiricists (the “data” people). These two camps examine data so differently that it is difficult to understand their views without knowing which method they use. This can drastically alter the information that is coming forth based on real or imagined/modeled data. Join us with George Taylor as we discuss the differences between the two camps, why they are so critical in understanding the data we receive from climatologists around the world, and why it is so important to separate apples and oranges in the context of the climate debate.
Listen to the interview here.
--------------------
NOTE: Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
----------------------
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
-------------------------------
GlobalWarming: The Other Side
See John Coleman’s one-hour special on KUSI Global Warming, the Other Side here. See his part II Global Warming Meltdown here. NEW: See his latest interview with Anthony Watts here. See his latest interview with Dr Fred Singer here. See his very revealing story on Roger Revelle here. See his powerful interview with E.M. Smith here. See his other videos here.
-------------------------
The Early Weather Channel Days and a Discussion of Global Warming
By Joe D’Aleo and Andre Bernier
Here more of an interview, I did with TV Meteorologist Andre Bernier of FOX 8 in Cleveland on Weatherjazz, who was a student of mine at Lyndon State College, and who by luck of the draw, was one of two on-camera meteorologists who did the first half hour of the Weather Channel (along with Bruce Edwards) on May 2, 1982. We talked about both the early days of the Weather Channel and global warming. The audio is here. See also episode 21 on November 10, 2009, when we talked about the upcoming winter.
-----------------------
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additonal scientific youtubes here.
------------------------
750 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm
“The following papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 750 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”
Author added a nice quote from an RC commenter,
“I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told by AGW voices that there are NO qualified skeptics or peer reviewed/published work by them. Including right here by RC regulars. In truth there is serious work and questions raised by significant work by very qualified skeptics which has been peer reviewed and published. It should be at least a bit disturbing for this type of denial to have been perpetrated with such a chorus. It’s one thing to engage and refute. But it’s not right to misrepresent as not even existing the counter viewpoints. I fully recognize the adversarial environment between the two opposing camps which RC and CA/WUWT represent, but the the perpetual declaration that there is no legitimate rejection of AGW is out of line.” - John H., comment at RealClimate.org
Minor Victory - on a side note with the help of Bill Hughes the publisher of the journal Energy & Environment, we successfully got Scopus to remove the trade journal listing and properly list E&E as a peer-reviewed journal. That now gives two credible sources indexing E&E as peer-reviewed - EBSCO and Scopus. This helps tremendously, especially when referencing MM’s papers in E&E and all the rest (roughly 15% of the list).
See still more annotated here.
--------------
Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
------------------------
Available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap) SOME NEW ITEMS:
See full size display here.
And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here
See sister sites:
Coleman’s Corner here.
Science and Public Policy Institute here.
Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.
RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
Weather/Climate and Health here.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool.